They say that sometimes nepotism can be a good thing. I have not seen one good thing come out of nepotism that doesn't benefit the family/friend. I find it to be a morale buster when behavior that would get anyone else fired. Having an unqualified person hold a director's position only because they have a degree in an engineering discipline that has nothing to do with structures. Yet makes determinations that are counterproductive and costly. Nobody questions the actions except one crusty director that calls a spade a spade. Most people are under a microscope in this organization, yet the family/friends get away with violating workplace rules. There seven in the group, and two of which are the owners. Slowly but surely, people are getting tired of the nonsense. Anyone have any horror stories?

Nepotism in a family owned business is to be expected. Nepotism in a business that has better qualified individuals is usually a detriment.

However who is going to care if Jim wants his son to take over the plumbing business? If anyone cares, they should leave the company.
If Jim's relative is able to do the task, and even excels at it, is it bad?

If Jim's relative is unable to do the task and fails, then that is bad for everyone. People should look at the corporation and company they are in and make those decisions themselves.

Do you work for Ford Motor Company?

Sounds like a bad situation, especially if the person's attitude is not appropriate for an engineering director title. My only advice would be, separate what is your opinion from what is objective fact.

You might also go back to some goal where you and this "director" agree 100%. Maybe you can persuade them that their goal can be better achieved in your way. If you don't even share the same goals, then one of you needs to leave. And guess who that is going to be.

Not sure how Favoritism can ever be good. Especially in the workplace.

extender wrote:

They say that sometimes nepotism can be a good thing. I have not seen one good thing come out of nepotism that doesn't benefit the family/friend. I find it to be a morale buster when behavior that would get anyone else fired. Having an unqualified person hold a director's position only because they have a degree in an engineering discipline that has nothing to do with structures. Yet makes determinations that are counterproductive and costly. Nobody questions the actions except one crusty director that calls a spade a spade. Most people are under a microscope in this organization, yet the family/friends get away with violating workplace rules. There seven in the group, and two of which are the owners. Slowly but surely, people are getting tired of the nonsense. Anyone have any horror stories?

Violating workplace rules without accountability by the owners/relatives is potentially very toxic. What kind of rules are violated? Also seems whoever the owners are are easily snowed over by this director if they don’t take issue with continually costly decisions.

Its good when it happens to me and bad when it happens to others.

I work for a very large multinational company still mostly in the hands of the family that created it. The CEO/chairman is a son of the founder, and will soon be replaced by a son or nephew.

In that particular case I think it has worked quite well so far. Maybe not for the investors, maybe some moves would have been more profitable for them, but for employees, the management style has stayed quite paternalistic, mass firings have never happened, and are always avoided even when times are tough. When another billionaire attempted an hostile takeover, tens of thousands of employees bought a lot of shares, enough that, combined with the shares of the family, control was kept and the takeover defeated.

There is an old saying:

Familiarity breeds contempt.

I would never ever work for or with my brothers or their kids. We know too much about each other and have different expectations. They may also expect to be treated different.

For a while I was in a rather uncomfortable position - My boss's husband reported to me - she was VP, I was manager, he was a supervisor. Was a terrible spot to be in. Only positive thing I could say is I never had any problems getting his yearly salary increase approved.This was for a large corporation, not a family-owned business. I was pretty surprised the grand high poobahs at the company allowed it

About halfway through the OP I started thinking about a person who started out dealing with old coins and then sent family folks out all over the place and ... well, that became a huge money dealing family. Actually they took huge up a couple of notches. You folks know who I am thinking of, don't you?

extender wrote:

They say that sometimes nepotism can be a good thing. I have not seen one good thing come out of nepotism that doesn't benefit the family/friend. I find it to be a morale buster when behavior that would get anyone else fired. Having an unqualified person hold a director's position only because they have a degree in an engineering discipline that has nothing to do with structures. Yet makes determinations that are counterproductive and costly. Nobody questions the actions except one crusty director that calls a spade a spade. Most people are under a microscope in this organization, yet the family/friends get away with violating workplace rules. There seven in the group, and two of which are the owners. Slowly but surely, people are getting tired of the nonsense. Anyone have any horror stories?

Don't know anything about your situation, so I do not know wheater this is a feasible option for you or not. Reading your story I though: leave!

Just find another job, if you feel like that now, imagine what you would feel like in one year or five? So no future for you in this company, just frustration. My two very easy given cents.

ER757 wrote:

My boss's husband reported to me - she was VP, I was manager, he was a supervisor.

My goodness, that sounds just horrible.

I'm surprised they allowed it as well.

vikkyvik wrote:

ER757 wrote:

My boss's husband reported to me - she was VP, I was manager, he was a supervisor.

My goodness, that sounds just horrible.

I'm surprised they allowed it as well.

This is definably a conflict of interest.

How did ER757 compensation work out during all of this?

casinterest wrote:

vikkyvik wrote:

ER757 wrote:

My boss's husband reported to me - she was VP, I was manager, he was a supervisor.

My goodness, that sounds just horrible.

I'm surprised they allowed it as well.

This is definably a conflict of interest.

How did ER757 compensation work out during all of this?

I did okay, still working at the same place until tomorrow - then it's happy retirement to me. 37 years there is long enough, if I don't leave now it might turn into a career

ER757 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

vikkyvik wrote:

My goodness, that sounds just horrible.

I'm surprised they allowed it as well.

This is definably a conflict of interest.

How did ER757 compensation work out during all of this?

I did okay, still working at the same place until tomorrow - then it's happy retirement to me. 37 years there is long enough, if I don't leave now it might turn into a career

Congratulations on the retirement.
I once knew of a company that the wife won in a divorce, and then hired her son to manage it, and ran it right into the ground.

casinterest wrote:

ER757 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

This is definably a conflict of interest.

How did ER757 compensation work out during all of this?

I did okay, still working at the same place until tomorrow - then it's happy retirement to me. 37 years there is long enough, if I don't leave now it might turn into a career

Congratulations on the retirement.
I once knew of a company that the wife won in a divorce, and then hired her son to manage it, and ran it right into the ground.

LOL - interesting thing about my situation was that the woman that was my boss and I came up through the ranks around the same time. She and her husband were, and still are, very dear friends. I had no desire for the VP job so had no animosity towards her when she got it. But she was a terrible boss to work for. I was overjoyed when she decided to step down in order to spend more time raising their sons. Definitely saved our friendship

For me it is tolerable, for the moment. They don't seem to realize that morale is indeed falling; they seem to think their policies on family have an effect on the employees. Hourly workers get their chops busted if they come late from break or lunch; fam doesn't even punch in/out for lunch(as is everyone else). Constant texting would get anyone canned, some are more equal than others, and they don't get a mention.

extender wrote:

Hourly workers get their chops busted if they come late from break or lunch; fam doesn't even punch in/out for lunch(as is everyone else). Constant texting would get anyone canned, some are more equal than others, and they don't get a mention.

Maladministration of timecards can be a serious offense. FLSA may also apply if supervisors are being ordered to treat family members favorably on timecard policy. If you have direct evidence of that, it would be a juicy lawsuit for any employment attorney.

extender wrote:

For me it is tolerable, for the moment. They don't seem to realize that morale is indeed falling; they seem to think their policies on family have an effect on the employees. Hourly workers get their chops busted if they come late from break or lunch; fam doesn't even punch in/out for lunch(as is everyone else). Constant texting would get anyone canned, some are more equal than others, and they don't get a mention.

That happens at a lot of places, though. Spend an hour or two just watching employees interact with each other and you can tell who is in with the in crowd. Those people who can clock in and out at their leasire and those who can use their phones to do whatever and those who can take advantage of company equipment. It is not exclusive to family.

seb146 wrote:

extender wrote:

For me it is tolerable, for the moment. They don't seem to realize that morale is indeed falling; they seem to think their policies on family have an effect on the employees. Hourly workers get their chops busted if they come late from break or lunch; fam doesn't even punch in/out for lunch(as is everyone else). Constant texting would get anyone canned, some are more equal than others, and they don't get a mention.

That happens at a lot of places, though. Spend an hour or two just watching employees interact with each other and you can tell who is in with the in crowd. Those people who can clock in and out at their leasire and those who can use their phones to do whatever and those who can take advantage of company equipment. It is not exclusive to family.

Anywhere that’s happening I promise you manager training is non-existent.

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

extender wrote:

For me it is tolerable, for the moment. They don't seem to realize that morale is indeed falling; they seem to think their policies on family have an effect on the employees. Hourly workers get their chops busted if they come late from break or lunch; fam doesn't even punch in/out for lunch(as is everyone else). Constant texting would get anyone canned, some are more equal than others, and they don't get a mention.

That happens at a lot of places, though. Spend an hour or two just watching employees interact with each other and you can tell who is in with the in crowd. Those people who can clock in and out at their leasire and those who can use their phones to do whatever and those who can take advantage of company equipment. It is not exclusive to family.

Anywhere that’s happening I promise you manager training is non-existent.

You'd be surprised. Everywhere I work, I work very hard to be with the it crowd. In crowd? Either way, I understand that people in that clique get perks. The perk I like the best is "I am just letting you know and not writing you up..." talk from the leader of the pack. Wrong, yes, but it happens more than you think. It does matter what the field is. A brain surgeon will probably not get that talk but a bus driver probably will.

seb146 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

That happens at a lot of places, though. Spend an hour or two just watching employees interact with each other and you can tell who is in with the in crowd. Those people who can clock in and out at their leasire and those who can use their phones to do whatever and those who can take advantage of company equipment. It is not exclusive to family.

Anywhere that’s happening I promise you manager training is non-existent.

You'd be surprised. Everywhere I work, I work very hard to be with the it crowd. In crowd? Either way, I understand that people in that clique get perks. The perk I like the best is "I am just letting you know and not writing you up..." talk from the leader of the pack. Wrong, yes, but it happens more than you think. It does matter what the field is. A brain surgeon will probably not get that talk but a bus driver probably will.

I would not be surprised - have seen the results of inadequate training and compliance time and again. Employees notice everything.

I work in a large government agency that has firm rules against nepotism after a long legacy of it. There are several good reasons for such a policy in government agencies or businesses as to hiring, discipline, management, diversity and qualifications. Persons could have inside or early info as to an opening for a job making it less fair for other potential applicants. Far too often in the past, it meant White males had advantages in getting a job, disadvantaging other than White males, a less diverse workforce, reinforcing racial and ethnic stereotypes and causing conflicts with the communities they serve. Relatives will protect each other, cover up in cases of discipline, enforcement of rules and annual reviews. There could be deals done in families or with their friends to get a kickback or a debt to paid sometime by such help. Sometimes it may mean taking on someone connected to the manager even if not fully qualified. All employees and job applicants should be judged on their own merits, not because they are connected.
Perhaps an example of where nepotism is bad is with Donald Trump's companies for generations and his term as President.
Donald with his father, brothers and his sisters were deeply involved with shady and greedy business practices that meant people paid more in rent than they should have. There was no one to say no to him when it came to business decisions when actually bad, illegal or unethical. Three of his own children are deeply involved in his businesses. A top executive who was indicted by a NYC grand jury earlier this year had his son working with him. It meant a lot less in taxes properly paid, and numerous criminal acts done in Trump's name.
Perhaps worse was with Trump as President. His daughter Ivanka had an advisory position close to him as President and correctly mocked over it. She was only there to be a 'yes daddy' to him, make sure no one else disagreed with him and she had no qualifications for that position. His sons and son-in-law had important official or unofficial positions in his maladministration despite serious ethical and security issues that led in part to horrible decisions, in particular with handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. You need outsiders, not only family, to be involved in decision making that can make the cold calculations, not be driven by a need to keep your job to keep it going and for the benefit of all.